🚀 go-pugleaf

<Dan S. Milagros> wrote in message
news:aeque2le0fqnp0t51phse852taidk4sada@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:11:24 -0700, pjberg@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >What if Oregon could enjoy the fastest economic growth rate of any state
> >over the next five years? What if, over the next two years, Oregon could
> >build a rainy day fund in excess of $2 billion to help cushion
> >inevitable economic downturns?
> >
> >The first scenario above is what actually happened in Colorado from 1995
> >through 2000, the first five years of its citizen-imposed spending
> >limitation, known there as TABOR, or Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The second
> >scenario is what forecasters predict will happen here over the next two
> >years if Oregonians pass a spending limitation on the November ballot
> >known as the Rainy Day Amendment.
> >
> >Tax and expenditure limitations are on the books in some 30 states,
> >keeping the size of government in check through limiting either state
> >revenue or spending. They generally do so by tying government growth to
> >either the growth of personal income or to a combination of inflation
> >plus population growth. Inflation plus population growth has
> >historically been more consistent and less volatile than the growth of
> >personal income, which can fluctuate widely.
> >
> >Colorado's TABOR amendment is actually quite different from the proposed
> >Oregon Rainy Day Amendment. TABOR limits growth in both state and local
> >government revenue. It requires that revenue above the limitation be
> >returned to taxpayers, which worked well during the economic boom of the
> >late 1990s, but which put downward pressure on government budgets during
> >the bust that occurred in the early part of this decade. This so-called
> >ratchet down effect caused Colorado voters to suspend TABOR for five
> >years beginning last November.
> >
> >Oregon's Rainy Day proposal limits not revenue, but expenditures. It
> >applies only to the state, not to local governments. Revenue collected
> >above the limitation can either be kept in a rainy day fund or returned
> >to taxpayers at the legislature's discretion. Oregon's proposal has no
> >ratchet down mechanism.
> >
> >In fact, unlike in Colorado, if state revenues decline here the
> >government can call on the rainy day funds accumulated during the good
> >times to maintain state spending. Also, as in Colorado, the legislature
> >and citizens can vote to override the limits in the future.
> >
> >The projected $2.2 billion that Oregon�?Ts Rainy Day ballot
> >measure might keep from being spent over the next two years is being
> >portrayed as a "loss"? by opponents of the measure. They want voters
> >to believe that such a large amount of money will starve essential state
> >services. What they fail to acknowledge is that this money still will be
> >collected, just not spent right away. Also, the $2.2 billion should be
> >compared to the state's All Funds budget (currently over $42 billion)
> >rather than to the General Fund (currently almost $12 billion).
> >
> >The legislature will have wide discretion in how it applies the
> >amendment's limit on total spending, and it will have no explicit limits
> >on the General Fund. Legislators thus could make spending adjustments
> >that would largely hold harmless budget items such as education, human
> >services, and public safety which make up over 90 percent of the General
> >Fund.
> >
> >Both Oregon's Rainy Day Amendment and TABOR base their limits on growth
> >of state population and inflation. But beyond that, Oregon's proposal
> >gives the state more latitude to preserve excess revenues in a rainy day
> >fund, rather than return them to taxpayers. Opponents of the measure
> >today likely will be the first to argue for keeping those excess
> >revenues if it passes in November.
> >
> >Sustainability is such a big concept in Oregon that it should be applied
> >to government growth as well as to the environment. Oregon's All Funds
> >budget grew twice as fast as the combined increase in population and
> >inflation over the past ten years, clearly not a sustainable path.
> >Opponents of the Rainy Day Amendment have the burden to explain why
> >state government should be allowed to grow faster than the private
> >sector. Oregon's tax revenues are highly variable from year to year
> >because of our reliance on income and capital gains taxes. Programs
> >begun at the height of a boom cannot be continued during a recession
> >except through tax hikes or borrowing. Opponents of the Rainy Day
> >Amendment have the burden to explain how better to cushion future
> >economic downturns if state government continues to immediately spend
> >every dime that comes in the door.
> >
> >The Rainy Day Amendment offers the best features of the Colorado
> >limitation, which led to strong economic growth during the boom, while
> >avoiding the worst features that kept Colorado from easily adjusting to
> >the bust. Oregonians who want their government to be fiscally
> >responsible should seriously consider the opportunity it presents.
> Oh my gosh...a ballot initiative signed by thousands of Oregon
> citizens seeking to reign in government spending...and all the far
> left extremist and unions are upset.
> Well....not all unions...just those unions who get there money from
> government workers.
>
> lordy lordy  poor old government with it's million dollar light rails
> and jails that are built and not used...and government with screwed up
> tram deals.
>
> are the voters gonna be frightened away by the doom and gloom from
> these fake unions?
>
> you think supporters of this ballot measure will be bombed...recall
> that Bill Sizemore's political office was bombed. Will the lefties get
> who next?

Didn't the sheriff's office say they thought he'd bombed his own office to
destroy records so he wouldn't have to produce them as a defendant later?

There was something like that going on. I don't recall exactly.

Curt